Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com
Organization: Aglio Database Solutions
To: Mike Sosteric <mikes@athabascau.ca>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] arrays
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:18:48 -0700
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
References: 
 <Pine.SUN.3.96.1020930110255.16690B-100000@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>
In-Reply-To: 
 <Pine.SUN.3.96.1020930110255.16690B-100000@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200209301018.48677.josh@agliodbs.com>


Mike,

> I have a very good sense of the strengths of relational databases. But
> they are also limited when it comes to object orientaed data (like XML
> records). I though arrays would be a way to simply the complexity you get
> when you try and map objects to relations.=20

In my experience, most XML records are, in fact, simple tree structures tha=
t=20
are actually easy to represent in SQL.   But I don't know about yours.

Certainly the translation of XML --> SQL Tree Structure is no more complex=
=20
than XML --> Array, that I can see.

> Is Cache open source?

No.   It's a proprietary, and probably very expensive, database.  There are=
 no=20
open source OODBs that I know of, partly because of the current lack of=20
international standards for OODBs.=20=20

> are the XML databases that are evolved and sophisticated enough to use in
> production environments.=20

I don't know.   The last time I evaluated XML databases was a year ago, whe=
n=20
there was nothing production-quality in existence.   But I don't know what=
=20
the situation is now.

--=20
-Josh Berkus
 Aglio Database Solutions
 San Francisco